- 1 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7815 OF 2019(MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, SARASWATHIPHURAM, MYSORE-570 009. AND ALSO REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. CHETHANKUMAR S/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HONAGALLIMUTT, KERAGODU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 2 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 3. ARUNKUMAR G.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR MAJOR, RESIDING AT B.GOWDAGERE VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 425. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; V/O DT:19.09.2025, NOTICE TO R-2 & R-3 ARE H/SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.06.2019 IN M.V.C.NO.1087/2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, MANDYA, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company to set aside the judgment and award dated 11.06.2019 in MVC No.1087/2016 passed by the II - 3 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") 2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein are the petitioners/claimants No.1, 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:- The claim petition in MVC No.1087/2016 is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") seeking compensation of Rs.22,90,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till realization with regard to the death of the son of the petitioner by name Sri Madankumar in a road traffic accident on 01.07.2013. 4. On 02.07.2013, the deceased Madankumar, along with G. Arunkumar and Koushik, was travelling from Talkad towards B. Gowdagere on a Bajaj Disc motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-EA-2274, ridden by - 4 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 Koushik. At about 6.15 p.m., in front of ITI College, K.M. Doddi, on the Maddur–Malavalli road, Koushik, while riding the motorcycle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly applied the brakes, causing the vehicle to capsize. As a result, Madankumar and Koushik sustained grievous injuries and Madankumar suffered a fracture to his left thigh and other bodily injuries. He was given first aid at the Government Hospital, K.M. Doddi, then treated at the District Hospital, Mandya, and subsequently shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, wherein Madankumar succumbed to his injuries on 03.07.2013. 5. After the postmortem, the body was handed over to the petitioners/claimants, who spent Rs.30,000/- on medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- on transportation of the body, and Rs.50,000/- for funeral and related ceremonies. The claimant No.1 is the mother and the claimant No.2 is the brother of the deceased, who was 19 years old, working as a mason earning Rs.15,000/- per month and supporting the family. The claimants claimed that the - 5 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Koushik. The respondent No.1, being the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.2, being the insurer-The Oriental Insurance Company limited, are jointly and severally liable for compensation. 6. After issuance of notice, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, while respondent No.2 appeared through the counsel and filed written statement by denying the allegations, contending that the rider had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. Hence the insurance company is not liable to indemnify any compensation and that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant No.2 was examined as PW-1 and claimant No.1 was examined as PW-2 and got marked documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand Superintendent of the RTO, Mandya was examined as RW-1 and Deputy Manager of Insurance - 6 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 Company was examined as RW-2 and got marked as per Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. 8. By judgment and Award dated 11.06.2019, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,84,600/- with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. It was further held that the respondent No.2– insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and is entitled to recover the same from the respondent No.1–owner of the vehicle as per law. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that Tribunal erred in directing the insurer to pay the compensation and thereafter recover it from the owner, despite clear evidence that the vehicle was ridden by an unlicensed driver who had also carried two pillion riders, including the deceased. It was argued that in such circumstances, the owner alone should have been held liable to pay the compensation. - 7 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 10. The appellant further submitts that the Tribunal wrongly assessed the deceased’s income at Rs.8,000/- per month with a 40% increase towards future prospects without any documentary proof of his occupation or earnings. It was also urged that the finding on “pay and recover” was erroneous and contrary to the material on record. Hence, the appellant prayed for modification of the judgment and award Tribunal. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1-claimant that deceased was aged 19 years and lost his life in the accident due to the fault of the rider, and therefore, the insurer cannot avoid liability. It was argued that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was valid and in force on the date of the accident, and the deceased, being a third party, cannot be made to suffer for the rider’s alleged lack of a valid driving license. 12. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal had rightly applied the principle of “pay and recover,” holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation first and - 8 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 recover it from the owner later. Since the appellant– insurer has already deposited 50% of the award amount as directed by this Court, and the same may be released in favor of the respondent No.1 herein by applying the principle of “pay and recover” and also requested to deposit another 50% of the awarded amount with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till deposit by dismissing the present appeal. 13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent No.1. Service of notice in respect of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 held sufficient. 14. Having considered the contentions advanced and on perusal of the records, it is observed that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant– Insurance Company as on the date of the accident. The insurer has produced no material to show that the policy was cancelled or not in force. The defence raised is that the rider did not possess a valid driving license and had carried two pillion riders, violating the policy terms. - 9 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 15. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, and in the case of Shamanna and others v. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 has clearly held that even in cases where there is a breach of policy condition relating to the driver’s license, the insurer is not exonerated from liability towards third parties; instead, insurer must pay the compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 16. Applying the said principle, the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to satisfy the award first and then recover the amount from the owner. The deceased was a third party, and denying compensation on account of the rider’s fault would be contrary to the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act. 17. As regards quantum, the Tribunal’s assessment of income at Rs.8,000/- per month with 40% addition - 10 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 towards future prospects for a 19-year-old bachelor is consistent with the ratio laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para 59.4). Hence, there is no infirmity in the award amount or the method adopted by the Tribunal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no error in the findings of the Tribunal on either liability or quantum. The appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. In view of the interim order granted by this Court on 31.07.2025, 50% of the compensation has been deposited before the Tribunal and a memo along with acknowledgement has been filed to the said effect. However, there is no observation forthcoming in the interim order regarding interest. However, the appellant shall deposit 6% interest on the entire compensation amount. 19. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following Order: - 11 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 11.06.2019 passed in MVC No.1087/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Mandya, is affirmed. iii) The appellant–Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining 50% of the award amount with the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of this judgment. iv) Interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, shall be deposited before the Tribunal on the entire compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of this judgment. iv) On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the entire amount in favor of claimant No.1 in terms of the award. - 12 - MFA No. 7815 of 2019 v) Liberty is reserved to the insurer to recover the amount from the vehicle owner in accordance with law. Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV